A collection of articles discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, written by Michael James and forming an extension of his main website, www.happinessofbeing.com.

Saturday, 11 July 2009

I have been reading chapter 9 (Self-Investigation) of your book Happiness and the Art of Being.

What you describe regarding the practice of atma-vichara as advocated by Ramana Maharishi, I interpret as being very similar to the practice of choice-less awareness, or shikantaza, as it is commonly referred to by Zen practitioners.

The significant difference between the two techniques is that I, as a Zen practitioner, am trained to use the power of attention in order to step back from ‘I’ thoughts and ‘I’ feelings. And thereby effectively return to the abiding silence.

The self-investigation technique in contrast uses the question, who?, whose?, where? etc in order to disentangle from ‘I’ thoughts and ‘I’ feelings, effectively returning to the abiding silence (and yes, I understand that you prefer to define self-investigation as the practice of being nothing other than oneself and not a process of mental questioning).

Some ‘I’ thoughts and feelings are so very powerful that challenging the validity of the ‘I’ by directly asking who? whose? where?, may very well be a more potent technique for disentangling from the ‘I’ chain, thereby returning to the abiding silence.

In reply to this I wrote as follows:I understand what you are saying, but I think a few points in what you write require some clarification.

Firstly you refer to ‘I’ thoughts and ‘I’ feelings, but actually there is only one thought (or feeling) ‘I’, which is our ego, the subject who thinks all other thoughts. This single thought ‘I’ may appear in any number of different forms, because it identifies itself with many different adjuncts, but though its forms may thus be many, it itself is just one, because we never feel that we are more than one ‘I’.

This single thought ‘I’ is a compound form of consciousness, because it is a mixture of our pure non-dual consciousness of being, ‘I am’, and various adjuncts such as our body and mind. That is, when we feel ‘I am this body’, ‘I am a person called so-and-so’, ‘I am sitting’, ‘I am reading’, ‘I am thinking’, ‘I am seeing’, ‘I am hearing’, ‘I perceive this world’, ‘I know this or that’, ‘I remember’, ‘I hope’, ‘I believe’, ‘I want this or that’, ‘I am happy’, ‘I am unhappy’ and so on, the ‘I’ that feels all these is our primal thought ‘I’, our mind or ego.

In verse 18 of Upadesa Undiyar Sri Ramana explains that this thought ‘I’ is the root and essence of the false thinking consciousness that we call ‘mind’:

Mind is only [a collection of] thoughts. Of all [these thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. [Therefore] what is called ‘mind’ is [in essence just this root thought] ‘I’.

So long as this spurious thought ‘I’ appears to exist, we cannot really ‘step back’ or ‘disentangle’ ourself from it, because it appears to exist only when we experience ourself to be it. How can ‘I’ step back or disentangle itself from ‘I’? In order to disentangle ourself from it, we must erase it entirely, and since it is a mere illusion or figment of our imagination, we can erase it only by seeing through it — that is, by experiencing the reality that underlies it.

So long as we are attending to anything other than ‘I’, we are experiencing ourself as this spurious object-knowing ‘I’ (the ego or thought ‘I’), and thus we are sustaining it, nourishing the illusion that it is really ourself. But when we withdraw our attention from all other things by focusing it wholly and exclusive upon ourself, we are literally seeing through this false ‘I’, because by attending only to ‘I’ we begin to experience ourself as the one real ‘I’ — our pure adjunct-free non-dual self-conscious being, ‘I am’ — which underlies and supports the illusion of our false adjunct-bound thought ‘I’.

This false thought ‘I’ is a mere imagination, like the imaginary snake that we think we see lying on the ground in the dim light of dusk. If we look carefully at the imaginary snake, we will see through its false appearance and recognise that it is actually only a rope. Likewise, if we keenly scrutinise this primal imagination, our thought ‘I’, we will see through its false appearance and recognise that it is actually only the one real non-dual self-consciousness, ‘I am’.

Thus vigilant self-attentiveness is the only means by which we can effectively step back or disentangle itself from our false thought ‘I’, because it is an illusion that we can destroy only by carefully examining it and thereby seeing the reality that underlies it.

As you say, when we thus examine this false thought ‘I’ in order to know who or what it really is, we will ‘thereby effectively return to the abiding silence’, which is our essential self-conscious being, ‘I am’.

You say that in Zen Buddhism this practice is called shikantaza (which you describe as ‘choice-less awareness’), so I did a Google search to find out what exactly shikantaza means. According to the Wikipedia page about shikantaza, it literally means, ‘nothing but (shikan) precisely (da) sitting (za)’, or in other words ‘just sitting’. I assume that whoever coined this word in this context did not intend ‘just sitting’ to mean merely a state in which the body is just sitting, but intended it to mean the state in which our mind is ‘just sitting’ — that is, abiding free of all activity or thinking.

If this is really the intended meaning of shikantaza, it means the same as the Tamil term summā iruppadu, which means ‘just being’ and which Sri Ramana defines in the sixth paragraph of Nan Yar? (Who am I?) as ‘making the mind to subside in ātma-svarūpa [our essential self]’. That is, the adverb summā literally means without work or activity, leisurely, silently, peacefully, restfully, merely, only or just, and iruppadu is a verbal noun that literally means being, so summā iruppadu means just being without any activity whatsoever.

In verse 4 of Anma-Viddai Sri Ramana describes the state of summā iruppadu or ‘just being’ very clearly as follows:

... When [one] just is, having settled down without the least action (karma) of speech, mind or body, ah, in [one’s] heart only the light of self (ātma-jyōti) will be [one’s] eternal experience, fear will not exist, [and] only the ocean of happiness [will remain].

In order for us just to be, our mind must completely subside along with all its activity. In other words, the thinker — the primal thought ‘I’, which thinks all other thoughts — must cease to exist along with all its thoughts.

Only the thought ‘this body composed of flesh alone is I’ is the one thread on which [all the other] various thoughts are strung. Therefore if [one] goes within [by scrutinising] ‘Who am I? What is the place [the ground or source from which this false ‘I’ originates]?’ [all] thoughts will disperse [because their root will be dissolved], and self-knowledge (ātma-jñāna) will shine forth spontaneously as ‘I [am] I’ within the cave [of our heart]; this alone is silence, the one [non-dual] space [of pure being-consciousness], the abode of [true] happiness.

Since this primal thought ‘I’ (which always experiences itself as ‘I am this body’) will continue to exist as long as it is thinking of things other than itself, and since those other thoughts will continue to exist as such as long as it is thinking them, neither will subside unless the other also subsides. That is, so long as other thoughts exist, the first thought ‘I’ must be existing to think them, and since this thinking thought ‘I’ can exist as such only when it is thinking other thoughts, so long as it exists, other thought will certainly exist along with it.

Therefore this thought ‘I’ will cease to exist only when it ceases thinking of any other thing, and it will permanently cease thinking of any other thing only when its entire attention is fixed firmly upon itself. Though it does cease thinking when it falls asleep, it does so only due to sheer exhaustion, and hence it rises from sleep as soon as it has recuperated sufficient energy by resting in its essential being.

Therefore, in order to subside permanently, the thinking mind (the first thought ‘I’) must not only cease thinking of any other thing, but must also vigilantly focus its attention upon its own essential consciousness of being, ‘I am’. As Sri Ramana says in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:

The mind knowing its own form of light [its essential light of self-consciousness, ‘I am’], having given up [knowing] external viṣayas [objects or experiences], alone is true knowledge.

That is, since this mind, our primal thought ‘I’, is an illusion, a false form of consciousness, it can be destroyed only by true knowledge of our real ‘I’, so to destroy it permanently we must focus our entire attention upon ourself — our true ‘form of light’ or self-luminous consciousness, ‘I am’ — thereby withdrawing it completely from all other things (which are only thoughts or figments of its imagination).

Therefore keen and vigilant self-attentiveness is the only effective means by which we can truly abide in silence, our natural state of ‘just being’, shikantaza or summā iruppadu.

You describe this true state of shikantaza as ‘choice-less awareness’, but this term ‘choiceless awareness’ (which was popularised by J. Krishnamurti) is potentially misleading and on analysis is actually devoid of any truly substantial meaning. Awareness or consciousness (chit) is our real nature, our essential being (sat), so there is truly never a time when we are not aware (or conscious). Therefore we really have no choice (or option) whether to be aware or not.

However, we can choose what we are aware of. We are now aware of our mind, our present body and this world because we choose to attend to them, and we can become aware of our real self only when we choose to cease attending to anything else and to attend instead only to our own essential being, ‘I am’.

Our choice to be aware of our thinking mind and whatever is known by it is called desire or attachment, whereas our choice to be aware only of our essential self, ‘I am’, is called true love or non-attachment — that is, true self-love or svātma-bhakti. Without this choice or love to know nothing other than ourself, we cannot know ourself as we really are, because our awareness of other things is the cloud that obscures and conceals our natural state of pure non-dual self-consciousness (or self-awareness).

As Sri Ramana often used to say, bhakti is jñāna-mata — that is, love is the mother of true knowledge — because we cannot experience ourself as we really are unless our love to experience ourself thus is all-consuming. That is, our love to know and to be nothing other than our real self must be so intense that it completely consumes all our other desires (which drive our mind outwards, away from ourself to experience other things).

When our love to be aware of nothing other than our essential self, ‘I am’, is so intense that it dissolves the illusion of our thinking and object-knowing mind in the absolute clarity of pristine non-dual self-consciousness, we will discover that such self-consciousness (or ‘self-awareness’) is our real nature and therefore absolutely ‘choiceless’ and ‘effortless’.

However, until we experience it thus, it is necessary for us to make a positive ‘choice’ and ‘effort’ to be vigilantly and persistently self-attentive or ‘self-aware’.

The term choicless awareness was coined only by the late philosopher J.Krishnamurti according to whom there are no psychological opposites, the psychological memory itself being an illusion. The understanding the untruth of psychological memory and the search for one's true self are one and the same if sincerely practiced. A gentleman from Cylone mentioned this to Bhaghavan who did not criticise it, but said that effortless and choicless awareness is our true state, but since by virtue of inattention we are identified with I thought involving efforts, some effort is necessary till we realize it.

Literal translation:至道無難 = Reaching the truth (or Walking the path of truth) is not difficult.唯嫌揀択 = All you have to do it to hate making choices.但莫憎愛 = Only when there is no love and hate,洞然明白 = it is clear like a (big entrance of )cave.

The poem continues. It means discarding likes and dislikes, dettachment in general. Choiceless awareness is Theravadan practice. Zen is Mahayana. Two different Buddhism.

Thanks for your comments- I found these verses in "Three pillars of Zen", I think, and another version in an old issue of Mountain Path: I was amazed at the terseness of the verses, and how similar it is to the teachings of Bhagavan. I think one should read this alongside Ribhu Gita: that good.

However, these are translations: do you have any intention of discussing this word by word, the way Michael James here does with the original Tamil writings of Bhagavan? That would help us a lot, I think.

Because, in the translation you give, you write, "All you have to do it to hate making choices." Is this a positive hatred, or is it more like a resistance to the making of choices? I think possibly the original word for 'hate' has different connotations than the one we have in English.

And the other query I have is, about this: "it is clear like a (big entrance of )cave.": I think this means you are in darkness, and once you have found the Way- it leads into light: so, the Way itself is in effect, clear like a vast opening out from a cave- am I right in reading it this way? Because, the way and the goal could not be different in time or thought.

It makes me wonder. I'm not one of the silent ones here, butthere are silent ones here. Is this a microcosm of theplanet? It is said that there are silent ones on thisplanet, unheard of ones whose presence keeps the world fromfalling apartquote from Jerry

I find the comments on buddhist shikantaza and the quotes very interesting because I practised some buddhist meditation in the past. My main practice was metta-meditation.

Concerning shikantaza I don't know much about it but from what I have read I have some reservations about it.For me personally it sounds a bit to technical. I miss the aspects of love and grace, which are essential in my spiritual practice.In my understanding the practice of atma-vichara is not just a technique or discipline because there has to be also a strong sense of love or bhaktito do that. Love just to be and surrender to "I am" but also love for and surrender to Sri Bhagavan.I think his grace is absolutely necessary for the experience true self-knowledge.Of course in essence Sri Bhagavan is our true self, but as a beginner I haven't experience the self in its pristine form so far, that's why thinking of him and at times even prayer is important for me. This is also a big help in developing humility.

I have the highest respect for other traditions and teachers but at a certain point reading other teachers and different traditionswas more a distraction for me than a help.Sri Bhagavans teachings are so clear and simple and thats why it is sufficient just to stay with that. In my opinion they contain everything that is necessary for liberation.A few years ago I read much more spiritual books of buddhist and other traditions, but now I just use only a few which translate and explain Sri Bhagavans teachings.This simplicity in my bookshelf is also some kind of relief.All the bestStefan

Xan: "Spirituality" may be something you would or would notintegrate into your life depending on your individual senseof purpose."Enlightenment", or the recognition of eternal awareness asyourself, is not necessarily "good" for anything. It is notnecessarily something you then use to improve lifeconditions for yourself or others. In the surrender of youridentity, *It* uses you as it will. The prayer of surrenderis "Thy will be done" until it is recognized there is onlyone will. Anything else is just ideas.

This is the deepest message of this wholeSong of Mahamudra: do not seek, just remainas you are, don't go anywhere else. Nobodyever reaches God, nobody can because youdon't know the address......No, nobody ever reaches God.It is always the reverse: Godcomes to you. Whenever you are ready. Andthe readiness is nothing but a receptivity: whenyou are completely receptive, there is no ego;you become a hollow temple with nobody in it.

My own meditative practice shifted in the beginning from Vipassana(an awareness and noting of thoughts) to the "non meditation" of the Tibetan Dzogchen open eye practice which is really akin to Shikantaza. Though helpful during the years I did it, I must say that the drawback was that thinking never ceased and hence, it was all too easy for the ego/mind to remain intact outside the practice. On the other hand, I've found that Atma Vichara effectively can and does end thought once one successfully maintains the attention on the "I Am" sense.

In Shikantaza, we sit in a comfortable erect posture. Then we allow our awareness to be in its natural state - Zen Mind, Original Face, and realize this to be our ordinary everyday mind as it is. What exactly this means is we 'allow' our mind to just be aware in an entirely uncontrived manner. This can be surprisingly difficult for the beginner because most people are unconscious of subtle tensions and "efforts to do, to suppress or not do" something with their mind which are deeply habitual - thinking, analyzing, fantasizing etc. If we can 'just sit' and just be aware of what is, focusing on nothing in particular and allowing our minds to rest, let go and just be aware and rest as THAT - as-we-are - we will notice a sense of awareness opening up, of brightness, of peace and ease. If allowed further, we will notice energy and bliss at some deeper dimension of awareness as Being itself. Taken further we get an increasing, yet subtle sense of infinity and loss of identification with the separate self arising from sensory stimuli.

Implicit to this discussion is a distinction between awareness and mind. I am defining awareness as our basic fundamental nature - the Tao itself. Mind in this context, is defined as cognitive activities or functions arising out of the brain and possibly astral levels of being. Mind may be considered a tool like the body. The body rests and just sits there; the mind rests and just sits there unengaged. Awareness as the fundamental nature of 'you' sees both the mind and the body, but is neither mind nor body, nor is it dependent on mind and body for its existence and function. Awareness is prior to mind and body. Awareness is essential and unchanging; mind and body are epiphenomena existing in awareness.

The simple meditation practice of Shikantaza is this: Just sit and be aware. The key then is to just be aware with no effort to be aware - no doing, just be natural awareness as it is. If you find yourself trying to be natural awareness as it is, then that is contrived and you have engaged the mind. Simply LET GO, relax, and be aware of what is, but of nothing in particular. In letting go and naturally being aware of what is you will find that natural still point. Allow the mind to ease off and open up. This can be practiced at all time during the day. Just be naturally aware, openly at ease, and spontaneously engaging - whether sitting or otherwise.

This is true vipassana. Uncontrived. To see the natural state of reality as it is. We should allow ourselves to notice mind throughout this period of sitting, as with other particulars that arise; as mind is part of reality, and not to be rejected, as rejection is an act of mind, not awareness. Rejection is based on the false premises of mind. In so doing we will notice when we find ourselves having fallen into doing in which we 'try' to be open and relaxed, when this happens we are no longer in an uncontrived state of natural abiding. The whole process requires concentration; that is, being brightly aware of what is. Concentration in this sense simply means being naturally aware and not being distracted by having our attention divided by activities of mind. As concentration wanes, awareness may become dull and one my space out, or more often, one's thoughts will re-assert themselves and we will go off on a tangent of thought. When we notice this we allow the stream of thought to drop by letting go again of the activities of mind, and just rest brightly aware of what is.

So, it really is simple, just sit and be aware.

A further point. Do not concentrate on sensory stimuli in particular, as that is contrived, it is effort of mind to do something. See this subtle distinction. Awareness is brightly aware as its natural state, there is not effort - no doing. Just be aware of what is - environment and awareness itself - no artificial distinction between external and internal - just the continuum of awareness. This, however, does not mean we are practicing awareness of awareness, that again is a contrived condition, a use of mind to focus on awareness. In such a case we would be privileging one object of awareness over another, and that is a use of mind. Rather, we are just being aware, just sitting. Discrimination in terms of intention, demarcation, effort, judgment are all discursive faculties of mind. Awareness operates entirely through direct knowing or clearly apprehending the nature of what is - it simply sees it for itself. No recourse to the inferential faculties of mind. So, Shikantaza or Dzogchen practice is simple on the surface, but there is much subtly and depth to it. Just sitting does not give it explanatory justice.

A final point on the body. Since the body is peripheral to awareness, it does not matter if the eyes are open or closed. Traditionally, they are open. There are merits and problems with both options. My recommendation is conclude this question by what feels natural to you. We do not wish to maintain unnatural, contrived states of body and mind in our practice. Awareness is the practice... drop all else.

many thanks for your interesting and inspiring explanation of shikantaza.

You wrote:"Do not concentrate on sensory stimuli in particular, as that is contrived, it is effort of mind to do something. See this subtle distinction. Awareness is brightly aware as its natural state, there is not effort - no doing. Just be aware of what is - environment and awareness itself - no artificial distinction between external and internal - just the continuum of awareness."

I never practised shikantaza so it is a bit difficult to understand what you mean with "..just be aware of what is". But in what you wrote I see a difference between these two practices. In my understanding atma-vichara is an intentional withdrawing of ones attention or consciousness from all other things and focus it only on itself. So there is not the question of being aware of the awareness itself and also something else like the environment or anything.

You also wrote:"This, however, does not mean we are practicing awareness of awareness, that again is a contrived condition, a use of mind to focus on awareness. In such a case we would be privileging one object of awareness over another, and that is a use of mind."

It's not about privileging one object of awareness over the other. It's about fixing ones attention on the first person, the experiencer, the sense of "I" or I am".

There are different explanations of mind, awareness and consciousness in different traditions. In Sri Bhagavans teaching mind or ego has no reality of its own and it always needs some kind of object to connect with. First and foremost the identification with the body.

"„That is, our mind or ego is a spurious entity, an impostor thatposes both as consciousness and as a body composed of inconscientmatter. It seems to come into existence and to endure only bygrasping an imaginary body as itself, and it feeds itself andflourishes by constantly attending to thoughts or imaginary objects.“"(Happiness and the Art of Being,p. 172)

So in my understanding of atma-vichara the consciousness aspect of the mind is conscious of or rest in itself. When consciousness can't connect with thoughts and objects, primary the body", the mind will disappear and there will be an experience of the self, the consciousness "I am" in its pure, unadulterated form.

There is also some kind of effort needed to do this. Because of our vasanas and the habituation to pay attention to thoughts, emotions and so called outer experiences it seems so difficult just to be and to stay with "I am".

it's likely that the practice of attention on the first person 'i am' is just another ego trick,when what actually happens is the ego reflects on itself!never underestimate the ego;otherwise the world will be full of jhanis.

ultimately when realization dawns,there's no different between i and world ; duality vanishes,so its much more profitable to proceed the awareness practice in a 'double edge' way,attend both to 'I' and the world simultaneously.

"You simply have to watch:where does mind arise from?Where does thought come from?What is the source of this thought?Dive together with this mindto its Source from where it began.Then you will see that you have always been Freeand that everything has been a dream.

Watch your thoughts come from nowhere.If something comes from nowherehow can it be anything?Anything must come from somewhere.If it doesn't come from somewhere it is nothing at all.So if thought comes from nowhere it must be nothing at all,because only nothing comes from nowhere.

He's a rather slippery and insubstantial guy, when I lookdirectly at him he kind of fades away. If I try to grab himhe slips right through my fingers, like grabbing at smoke. He's always trying to get somewhere but he doesn't actuallyever go anywhere. His biggest concern is what beings hecalls 'other people' are thinking about him. These 'otherpeople' are smokelike slippery insubstantial beings likehim. No matter what he hears from these 'others' he's neverhappy for long.

I also think that Zen and Atma-vichara is different. Although some Zen teachers instruct to look inside, look at yourself, but it is not universal Zen practice, and the method to look inside is not specific. The gist of Zen of Shikantaza school (other zen schools have other methods) is just to sit, doing nothing else, just to be. As Stefan is German, I recommend a book 'Zen in the art of archery' by Eugen Herrigel, a German philosopher. The book is not about Shikandaza itself, but is a very good book with deep meaning. It is specially helpful to understand karma yoga, action without do-er.English translation is available for download here:(If you read it, I advise you to read from the chapter 2. As the author is a philosopher, he is a bit too pedantic in chapter 1, and you might throw the book away.) http://www.scribd.com/doc/5992779/eugen-herrigel-zen-in-the-art-of-archery

Akira, the book "The art of archery " has been around along, long time. It's also influenced not only by Zen but also the Tao.You must remember Ramana also said:"Do not meditate beDo not think you are - beDon't think about being - you are"

marcia wrote--we all sing our songs again &again with thesame notes-- ain't it the truth!! at least here on the listthere's enough variety so it almost never gets boring, butin my quaker meeting discussion groups i basically know whatevery one is going to say before they open their mouths!!how nice it would be if no one was home... is it possible todrop one's "usual" personality if one is empty??justwondering...

many thanks for your book recommendation. I can recommend the ‘Ashtavakra Gita’. Sri Bhagavan sometimes made references to this wonderful book. You can read it here:http://realization.org/page/doc0/doc0004.htm

You can also listen to the text or download the audio files here:http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ashtavakragita.html

I remember at the end of a retreat with Gangaji, I was questioning a fewthings and the other people were saying to drown me in the ocean (they werejoking on the surface). Itwas if it had become a cult where everyone had to agree withthe leader.Neo

Everybody has a sorrow in his heart. We have radios and televisions; wehave jet planes and motor cars; we have the best food to eat and mostattractive dress to put on; we have got social status and position; wehave got money to spend and to burn. There is nothing that we lack,materially speaking. But we are unhappy, we are sorrow-stricken and wehave a grief at the bottom of our heart. This is the essence of thewhole matter. This grief is present in every human being,--you, me andeveryone--in spite of the fact that we have all comforts conceivablethat can be bestowed upon us by science and industry. The purpose of theincarnation of these Masters is to point out where the crux of the wholeproblem lies. They are the physicians of the soul and they come todiagnose the illness of the spirit in man.Swami Krishnananda

I found follwing words of Bhagavan about 'choiceless awareness'.Probably you have already read this. I just post this in case you have not.

Excerts from "Day By Day With Bhagavan" ,11-1-46 AfternoonA young man from Colombo asked Bhagavan,“J. Krishnamurti teaches the method of effortless and choiceless awareness as distinct from that of deliberate concentration. Would Sri Bhagavan be pleased to explain how best to practise meditation and what form the object of meditation should take?”Bhagavan: Effortless and choiceless awareness is our real nature. If we can attain it or be in that state, it is all right. But one cannot reach it without effort, the effort of deliberate meditation. All the age-long vasanas carry the mind outward and turn it to external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the mind turned inward. For that, effort is necessaryfor most people. Of course everybody, every book says, “summa iru” i.e., “Be quiet or still”. But it is not easy. That is why all this effort is necessary. Even if we find one who has at once achieved the mauna or Supreme state indicated by “Summa iru”, you may take it that the effort necessary has already been finished in a previous life. So that, effortless and choiceless awareness is reached only after deliberate meditation.

This wonderful story of Prof Aiyer has always taken my fancy. The story is timeless in essence.

Professor Krishnamoorthy Aiyer speaks in his old age:

I am now ninety-two years old and I first met the Maharshi in the summer of 1914.

I had a question for the Maharshi. At that time I was an agnostic. I thought nature could take care of itself, so where is the need for a Creator? What is the use of writing all these religious books telling 'cock and bull' stories, which do not change the situation. I wanted to put to him straight questions: is there a soul? Is there a God? Is there salvation? All these three questions were condensed into one: Well sir, you are sitting here like this - I can see your present condition - but what will be your future sthiti ? The word sthiti in Sanskrit means 'state' or 'condition'.

The Maharshi did not answer the question. "Oho," I thought, "you are taking shelter under the guise of indifferent silence for not answering an inconvenient question!" As soon as I thought this the Maharshi replied and I felt as if a bomb had exploded under my seat.

"Sthiti, what do you mean by the word sthiti!" he exclaimed. I was not prepared for that question. "Oho, this man is very dangerous, very dangerously alive. I will have to answer with proper care," I thought. So I said to myself, "If I ask him about the sthiti or 'state' of the body it is useless: the body will be burned or buried. What I should ask him was about the condition of something within the body. Of course, I can recognize a mind inside of me." Then I was about to answer "By sthiti, I mean mind," when it struck me what if he counter-questions with "What is mind?" This I am not prepared to answer.

As all this was passing through my mind he was sitting there staring at me with a fierce look.

I then questioned within me, "What is mind? Mind is made up of thoughts. Now, what are thoughts?" I landed in a void. No answer. I then realised that I could not present a question about a mind which did not exist!

Up to that point, the mind was the greatest thing that existed for me. Now I discovered it did not exist! I was bewildered. I simply sat like a statue. Two pairs of eyes were then gripping each other: the eyes of the Maharshi and my eyes were locked together in a tight embrace. I lost all sense of body. Nothing existed except the eyes of the Maharshi.

I don't know how long I remained like that, but when I returned to my senses, I was terribly afraid of the man. "This is a dangerous man," I thought. In spite of myself, I prostrated and got away from his company.

AMERICAN SHAMANS; People who switch on Oprah and Dr Phil have just flat out given up on dignity and accepted they need the daily intervention of American shamans to get by.

Oprah and Phil have become rich selling hope to this lost demographic. Why not? It makes perfect sense. If you are going to sell hope you might as well sell it to the broken and beaten, for they are many and they are desperate.

TA - Thinkers AnonymousIt started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself - but Iknew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but Icouldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, " I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home early after my conversation with the boss."Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But,Honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!" "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they didn't open. The library was closed. As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavythinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probablyrecognize that line. It comes from the standard ThinkersAnonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non educational video; lastweek it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stoppedthinking.---------------------------------------

When i say, "let it be," it is true, of course, that the inner conflict might come to a halt.

When we embrace all that there is, the part we like and the part we don't, this might happen.

But, the problem, as it seems to me, is not that there is a problem outside me that seeks resolution- I am the part of the problem that makes it a problem: hope I make sense here.

What are we to do with the consciousness that makes it a problem and seeks a way out? Saying "let it be" does not seem to bring this consciousness to rest- this consciousness that has turned outward and seeks engagement with external objects, does not seem to let itself be.

Baskar, You are so right. Nevertheless Nisargadatta says "If you could only keep quiet, clear of memories and expectations, you would be able to discern the beautiful pattern of events. It is your restlessness that causes chaos."Consequently when my mind is troubled I say to myself 'who is troubled?' 'let it be' let go of it' be detached and often it works and I'm peaceful and happy.h j

@hj, This is in response to your statement- "Consequently when my mind is troubled I say to myself 'who is troubled?' 'let it be' let go of it' be detached and often it works and I'm peaceful and happy."

Yours is a happy state- I, on the other hand, can't find peace of mind with such ease. I think you are a person who is naturally blessed with equanimity.

Coming to the Nisargadatta quote, "...If you could only keep quiet, clear of memories and expectations, you would be able to discern the beautiful pattern of events,"- there is still the element that discerns a pattern.

I find that even when I don't have anything to worry, or any troublesome thoughts, the mind still wanders, and as Maharaj says, its restlessness causes chaos (and sorrow).

The central problem that I face is, what am I to do with the mind that perceives calm/ conflict, peace/strife: it seems to me that no matter what the state of mind- the struggle does not bother me as much as the element of duality that is present all through the day in all our activities.

I think when you ask yourself "who is troubled?" and let it go, the mind is disengaged from its preoccupations and returns to its peaceful nature: it is in the nature of mind to see peace reflected in its consciousness, am I right? I think you are predominantly Sattvic.

But, I am faced with the sorrow and grief of the mind that won't rest- no matter whether there is peace or conflict. It does not let go: It lets go its objectivisation alright, but it does not let go its root-tendency of extroversion.

Dear Baskar, Did you see my last input about the student with the meditation master. The many games the mind plays, up and down like a yoyo. The teacher says" and this too will pass."I am not naturally blessed with equanimity. My mind is often troubled and I'm in a family situation where there is enough drama or melodrama.You'll find with Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta both say effort is needed. It all depends on the strength of the mind. What is self enquiry? There is no answer to the question, it is simply a ploy to quieten the mind and stop the flow of thoughts. Happy extroverted thoughts can bloat the ego. Sad and worrying thoughts just agitate the mind.Are we not all sick of the brooding thoughts? The only way out of this is awareness, self enquiry and surrender.hj

A 43-year-old unemployed bachelor who lives with his elderly mother in Russia — and who won $1 million for solving a problem that has stumped mathematicians for a century. Grigory Perelman can't decide if he wants the money. "He said he would need to think about it." Perelman is a recluse and even though this is not a spiritual story as such, the fact that he can't be bought and seems to live a simple life that greed hasn't touched is quite arresting.hj

So you have to make up your mind, you see. So you have to make a firm decision. Nothing can trouble you. If you are weak, then everything will trouble you. Simply decide to sit quiet. Simply! This will be a fire. Nothing can touch you. Only your decision is weak.

@hj: Perelman seems to have turned down another award, something called Fields medal, earlier:

"Perelman's reasons for turning down the Millennium prize are likely similar to why he turned down the Fields Medal. To quote him on the Fields Medal: I'm not interested in money or fame. I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want everyone looking at me. "

So you have to make up your mind, you see. So you have to make a firm decision. Nothing can trouble you. If you are weak, then everything will trouble you. Simply decide to sit quiet. Simply! This will be a fire. Nothing can touch you. Only your decision is weak.

In my view, everything happens by itself, quite spontaneously.But humans think they would work for a win, towards a purpose.

There's nothing from which the world could profit more than fromgiving up profit. A man who's no longer thinking in terms of winningand loosing is truly non-violent man, since he's above all conflicts.Nisargadatta

I do see no essential difference between the most matured masters like Dogen who taught Shikantaza and Bhagavan who asked us to just BE.Of course is the act of questioning the i-thought a willful exercise but it stops the outgoing mind quickly and reveals immediately the non-dual, even for a fraction of a second.Choiceless awareness is a beautiful term of Presence that has matured and digested all willfulness.Bassui who practised for 50 years self-enquiry had great regard for Dogen and studied with some teachers of that that tradition of Dogen.

Truth is your own experience, your own vision. Even ifI have seen the truth and I tell you, the moment Itell you it will become a lie for you, not a truth.For me it was truth, for me it came through the eyes.It was my vision. For you, it will not be your vision,it will be a borrowed thing. It will be a belief, itwill be knowledge--not knowing. And if you startbelieving in it, you will be believing a lie.

Now remember it. Even a truth becomes a lie if itenters your being through the wrong door. The truthhas to enter through the front door, through the eyes.Truth is a vision. One has to see it.

Naropa was a great scholar, a great pundit, with tenthousand disciples of his own. One day he was sittingsurrounded by thousands of scriptures--ancient, veryancient, rare. Suddenly he fell asleep, must have beentired, and he saw a vision.

He saw a very, very old, ugly, horrible woman--a hag.Her ugliness was such that he started trembling in hissleep. It was so nauseating he wanted to escape--butwhere to escape, where to go?

He was caught, as if hypnotized by the old hag. Hereyes were like magnets.

Thousands of questions had been asked to Naropa in hislife--thousands of students always asking,inquiring--but nobody had asked this: whether heunderstands the word, or the sense. And the woman'seyes were so penetrating--those eyes were going to thevery depth of his being, and it was impossible to lie.To anybody else he would have said, "Of course Iunder-stand the sense," but to this woman, thishorrible-looking woman, he had to say the truth. Hesaid, "I understand the words."

The woman was very happy. She started dancing andlaughing, and her ugliness was transformed; a subtlebeauty started coming out of her being. Thinking, "Ihave made her so happy. Why not make her a little morehappy?" Naropa then said, "And yes, I understand thesense also."

The woman stopped laughing, stopped dancing. Shestarted crying and weeping and all her ugliness wasback--a thousandfold more. Naropa said, "Why are youweeping and crying? And why were you laughing anddancing before?"

The woman said, "I was happy because a great scholarlike you didn't lie. But now I am crying and weepingbecause you have lied to me. I know--and youknow--that you don't understand the sense."

The vision disappeared and Naropa was transformed. Heescaped from the university, he never again touched ascripture in his life. He became completely ignorant,he understood--the woman was nobody outside, it wasjust a projection. It was Naropa's own being, throughknowledge, that had became ugly. Just this muchunderstanding, that "I don't understand the sense,"and the ugliness was transformed immediately into abeautiful phenomenon.

This vision of Naropa is very significant. Unless youfeel that knowledge is useless you will never be insearch of wisdom. You will carry the false cointhinking that this is the real treasure. You have tobecome aware that knowledge is a false coin--it is notknowing, it is not understanding. At the most it isintellectual--the word has been understood but thesense lost.

Bhagavan Ramana once said referring to thebodhisattva vow of not attaining the finalliberation until all sentient beings havebeen liberated:"it is like saying I will not wake up from thedream until all the dream characters haveawakened from the dream"

If a person demands worship, that person has his/her head up a cloud , whether or not they are realized/enlightened. I don't care if they live in the streets or are regarded as avatars. The Self has *no* expectations and makes *no* demands. These *always* arise from the personality, and are indicative of a narcissistic character disorder much more than any real understanding or wisdom.

To question reality is good. To create your own reality is not to question. What you want has nothing to do with what Is. What Is, is not, as far as you are concerned. If all is one, that doesn't leave much room for you. If all is one, where is zero? It is best to know the tides before building sand castles. Quantum physicists are well-educated mechanics. Who decides what you decide? Those who create their own reality also create the facts to prove it. If we are all one, then I don't need a co-creator. Creation is downstream from the source. Find the source. Your thoughts are as empty as an atom. Shawn Nevins

Extraordinary comment. Superb, actually- "Creation is downstream from the source. Find the source.": our preoccupation with the created world sets us on a course that takes us away from the source, right?

It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.Richard Feynman

Question: I am contaminated by society. How am I to be free of that contamination?

K: Surely, the question is not how to be free of that contamination, for then you merely create another conflict, another problem. The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination. The 'I' is a thing that has been put together through conflict, through envy, through ambition and the desire for power, through agony, guilt, despair. And is it possible for that 'I' to dissolve itself without conflict?

These are not theoretical or theological questions. If one is at all serious about understanding oneself, one sees that any effort to dissolve the 'I' has a motive; it is the result of a reaction, and therefore still part of the 'I'. So what is to be done? One can see the fact and not do a thing about it. The fact is that every thought, every feeling, is the result of society with its ambitions, its envies, its greeds; and this whole process is the 'I'. The very act of seeing this process in its entirety is its dissipation; you do not have to make an effort to dissipate it. To see something poisonous is to leave it alone.

K: Don't be aware all the time. Just be aware in little bits.Please, there is no being aware all the time -- that is adreadful idea. It is a nightmare, this terrible desire forcontinuity. Just be aware for one minute, for one second,and in that one second of awareness you can see the wholeuniverse. That is not a poetic phrase. We see things in aflash, in a single moment; but having seen something, wewant to capture, to hold it, give it continuity. That is notbeing aware at all. When you say, "I must be aware all thetime," you have made a problem of it, and then you shouldreally find out why you want to be aware all the time --see the greed it implies, the desire to acquire. And to say,"Well, I am aware all the time," means nothing.

Is love, like marriage, for ever and ever? Are marriagesfor ever and ever? You know better than I do. Is love forever and ever, or is it something totally stripped of time?

Therefore they say, 'the breath is Vayu (God of the wind), seed is breath; seed comes into being first when man comes into existence.' In that he recites a triplet to Vishnu, thus he makes his breath perfect...Where there is expiration, there is inspiration; in that he recites a triplet to Indra and Vayu, thus his expiration and inspiration he makes perfect." - from the Aitareya Brahmana

From Day by Day with Bhagawan"The visitor also asked, “When a man realises the Self,what will he see?” Bhagavan replied, “There is no seeing. Seeing is only Being. The state of Self-realisation, as we call it, is not attaining something new or reaching some goal which is far away, but simply being that which you always are and which you always have been. All that is needed is that you give up your realisation of the not-true as true. All of us are realising,i.e., regarding as real, that which is not real. We have only to give up this practice on our part. Then we shall realise the Self as the Self, or in other words, ‘Be the Self’. At one stage one would laugh at oneself that one tried to discover the Self which is so self-evident. So, what can we say to this question?"

How amazing some many Vedas and Upanishads and books to realize this Being, which is there always. The illusion of having to reach somewhere is so strong in us that we fail to look at the obvious right here and now with us. This illusion which is created by thought is also from Being since can any one think without Being? and/but we all know intuitively that we can Be without thinking (may be not without a lot of practice :))

An aspirant is seeking a path for himself, may find it has been trodden before and can learn from that and perhaps avoid repeating other unworkable or limited patterns. By contrast, Western philosophy is a dry theoretical excersise created by dilettantes: of the intellect and reason rather than understanding tested and tried by inner experienceMurray

I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act.

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.

Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.

To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one's family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him.

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.

I have walked through many livessome of them my own,and I am not who I was,though some principle of beingabides, from which I strugglenot to stray.When I look behind,as I am compelled t lookbefore I can gather strengthto proceed on my journey,I see the milestones dwindlingtoward the horizonand the slow fires trailingfrom the abandoned camp-sites,over which scavenger angelswheel on heavy wings.Oh, I have made myself a tribeout of my true affections,and my tribe is scattered!How shall the heart be reconciledto its feast of losses?In a rising windthe manic dust of my friends,those who fell along the way,bitterly stings my face.Yet I turn, I turn,exulting somewhat,with my will intact to gowherever I need to go,and every stone on the roadprecious to me.In my darkest night,when the moon was coveredand I roamed through wreckage,a nimbus-clouded voicedirected me:"Live in the layers,not on the litter."Though I lack the artto decipher it.no doubt the next chapterin my book of transformationsis already written.I am not done with my changes.

I have walked through many livessome of them my own,and I am not who I was,though some principle of beingabides, from which I strugglenot to stray.When I look behind,as I am compelled t lookbefore I can gather strengthto proceed on my journey,I see the milestones dwindlingtoward the horizonand the slow fires trailingfrom the abandoned camp-sites,over which scavenger angelswheel on heavy wings.Oh, I have made myself a tribeout of my true affections,and my tribe is scattered!How shall the heart be reconciledto its feast of losses?In a rising windthe manic dust of my friends,those who fell along the way,bitterly stings my face.Yet I turn, I turn,exulting somewhat,with my will intact to gowherever I need to go,and every stone on the roadprecious to me.In my darkest night,when the moon was coveredand I roamed through wreckage,a nimbus-clouded voicedirected me:"Live in the layers,not on the litter."Though I lack the artto decipher it.no doubt the next chapterin my book of transformationsis already written.I am not done with my changes.

I heard a funny story last night. Seems there was this devotee who had beenwith his guru for 18 years and found out some stuff about him. He went tohis guru and said I've heard that you are a liar, cheat and hypocrite. Theguru got angry, called him an ingrate and told him to go away for 6 monthsand meditate. After 6 month the disciple went back to the guru. The gurugot excited and assumed the disciple had learned the errors of his way. Sohis asked him if God had spoken to him and the disciple told him yes and theguru wanted to know what he said and he told him that he told him the guruwas a liar, a cheat and a hypocrite. The guru got quiet and after a longpause said to him with much excitement "He mentioned me by name !!!!!"

I have learned that everyone wants to live on the peak of the mountain without knowing that real happiness is in how it is scaled. I have learned that when a newborn child squeezes for the first time with his tiny fist his father's finger, he has him trapped forever. I have learned that a man has the right to look down on another only when he has to help the other get to his feet.

Hold your breath and put your head underwater. Notice that a clear intention begins to form within a matter of seconds.

Now take a nice big bite of a habanero pepper and begin chewing it. Again, notice that a clear intention forms within seconds.

When you are sick, notice that you gain clarity in your health intentions. When you lose your job, notice that your financial intentions become clearer.

If you want to bring more clarity to your intentions, get off the sidelines of life, and get onto the field. The field is scarier. The sidelines are safer.

Go immerse yourself in something you fear. A new intention will quickly form.

A low-contrast life has very little power to form intentions. Such lives maintain that safety is a higher priority than growth. However, those who subscribe to such a philosophy eventually find themselves locked within their safes.

The quickest way out of that safe is to follow the path of courage. Fear is its signpost.

Turn toward your fears, and powerful intentions will form automatically.

The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, reponsive.The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable.Because it is unfathomable,All we can do is describe their appearance.Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream.Alert, like men aware of danger.Courteous, like visiting guests.Yielding, like ice about to melt.Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood.Hollow, like caves.Opaque, like muddy pools.

Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?Who can remain still until the moment of action?Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment.Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by a desire for change.hj

The Master was entering an army encampment to attend a dinner when hesaw one of the officers at the gate. He pointed to a bare wooden gatepostand said, "A common mortal or a sage?"The officer had no reply.The Master struck the gatepost and said, "Even if you had managed areply, it would still just be a wooden post!" With that he entered the camp.

Articles Discussing the Philosophy and Practice of the Spiritual Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana

Bhagavan Sri Ramana

About This Blog

Welcome to this blog, which is an extension of my main website, Happiness of Being, and which is dedicated to discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of our sadguru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana.

This blog is a growing archive of articles that I have written from time to time containing my translations of verses and other passages from the writings of Sri Ramana and his closest disciples, particularly Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om, my recordings of some of the explanations that I heard from Sri Sadhu Om, and my own musings about the philosophy, science and art of true self-knowledge as taught by Sri Ramana.

All the articles in this blog are also clearly indexed in two sections further down in this left margin, firstly according to date in reverse chronological order under the heading Article Archive, and secondly in greater detail according to subject arranged alphabetically under the heading Index of Topics.

Search this blog

The search box at the top left-hand corner of this page will only search for words in the articles, not in the comments, so if you want to search this entire blog, including the comments, you can use the following search box, which will do a Google search and return all the results in a separate tab:

Guidelines for Comments

Though I would prefer to keep this blog as a free and open forum for discussing Bhagavan’s teachings, during recent months the comments on each article have been increasingly dominated by trolls and others making ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in serious and reasonable discussions of his teachings, thereby deterring others who may wish to engage in (or just read) such discussions, so as of today, 1st December 2018, I have reluctantly decided to introduce comment moderation, and hence no comments will be posted until I have had time to read and approve them.

All comments are welcome provided that they are relevant to Bhagavan’s teachings and do not contain personal criticism or abuse. Since we do not all understand his teachings in exactly the same way, any open discussion of them will naturally involve disagreement, but any disagreement should be expressed in a polite, respectful and reasonable manner. By all means criticise ideas that you disagree with, but please explain clearly why you disagree with them and do not allow your criticism to deteriorate into an attack on the supposed character, motive or other qualities of any person who expressed them.

If you disagree with anything I have written, please do not hesitate to say why you disagree with me and, if you so choose, to ask for further clarification. I do not have time to answer all such comments (or most of the emails I receive), but if I think it is a sufficiently important point I will try to find time to answer it (though if I do not answer any point you have raised please do not assume that I consider it to be unimportant, since so many important points are raised that I do not have time to reply to all of them individually).

Since I will not be able to moderate all comments as and when they are submitted, please bear with me until I have time to read and approve whatever you may have submitted, and do not be disappointed if sometimes you have to wait more than a day or so before your comment is posted.

Recent Comments

Feed Subscription Links

If you would like to be updated whenever any new article or comment is posted on this blog, you can right-click on either or both of the links below, select ‘Copy link address’ or an equivalent option, and then paste the address (URL) into your feed reader:

If you do not already use a feed reader, and if your browser is Google Chrome, you can install the following extension to it: RSS Feed Reader for Chrome. This will add an icon to the toolbar of your browser, which you can click on to add either or both the feed URLs above, and then whenever a new article or comment is posted here, at the bottom corner of the icon a number will display or the existing number will increment.

Sri Ramana Teachings on Facebook

An alternative way to be updated whenever any new article or comment by Michael is posted on this blog is to visit Sri Ramana Teachings, a public Facebook page where links to them or copies of them will be posted, and if you have a Facebook account you can like it and choose to receive notifications.

Several new videos are uploaded to this channel each month, and one of the latest is one that was taken during a meeting of the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK on 8th September 2018:

If you would like to be notified by YouTube via email whenever any new video is added to this channel, you can subscribe to it either by clicking on Subscribe to Sri Ramana Teachings or by visiting Sri Ramana Teachings and clicking on the ‘Subscribe’ button that you will see in the upper right-hand corner just under the banner showing Arunachala hill.

Audio copies of most of these videos are available on MediaFire in a folder called Discussions with Michael James, where they can either be listened to online or downloaded as MP3 files.

Support this blog

If you would like to support me to continue writing for this blog and doing other related work, you may contribute to my living expenses by clicking on this button:

Until December 2015 I was able to carrying on writing this blog without needing to accept any of the kind offers of financial support that I received from friends and well-wishers, but I eventually reached a point where I seemed to have no option but to accept whatever support may be offered. Writing articles for this blog and replying to comments and emails asking questions about Bhagavan’s teachings is my full-time occupation (and one that I do solely for the love of this subject), so I have no other job and I receive only a small pension and some royalties from my book sales, which amount to far less than I need for rent, food and other essential expenses, so any financial help that any of you may be able to offer would be much appreciated.

However, I would like to emphasise that this blog and whatever else I write about Bhagavan’s teachings is still intended to be an entirely free service, because I believe his teachings are too valuable to be sold and should not be used for financial gain, so any contributions to me should be entirely voluntary and no one should feel any compulsion to contribute. I am sure that most of you have your own financial difficulties and constraints, because having given us the true wealth of his teachings, Bhagavan generally does not bestow material wealth on those of us who aspire to follow the path he has shown us, and because he has made us understand that money and material gain are not the aim or purpose of our life. Therefore please do not try to contribute anything more than you can comfortably afford, and if you are unable to contribute anything, please do not feel bad about it, because ultimately it is up to Bhagavan to decide how (or if) he wants to provide for my material needs, and I am sure he will take care of me in one way or another (whether or not I like the way he chooses).